I believe libraries are still very important in today's society. Libraries hold a wealrth of knowledge and useful information that is available to everyone for free. Libraries give those who may not have the resources otherwise to do research or use a computer or apply for a job online, the list goes on. Bollier says libraries are important for that very reason, their availability of knowledge. The internet has a wealth of infomration too, but unlike a library, it isnt always free and not everyone has access to it.
Siva is saying olgarchy can happen if we are not carfeul with the free information and knowledge we can obtain in a library. This information should alwasy remain free to the public and not controlled by the government or a corporation. Its an ongoing battle between controllers and liberators that we need to find common ground on. Libraries may not always be free to the public and if that happens then thats the end of free info the public. Not everyone has access to the internet at home or even a computer, and if libraries are not free than many will loose out on what the "free" world has to offer.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Commons-Spencer
1.) Libraries serve a great purpose in our world today. Not as great as they did 50 years ago, but still significant. I personally feel that the internet greatly takes up the task that libraries were originally charged with doing. However, it is important to have a bastion of learning and free information in every community. When people have a meeting place that is free and devoid of corporate influence, that is when democracy can flourish completely.
2.) Siva writes that libraries are being taken over by "anarchists" in every way. This seems to be true in a world full of restrictive copyrights and overactive corporate restrictions. I, like many of my class mates don't fully agree with all of Siva's views, but I would not want my children stumbling across something I wouldn't want them to see. However, I fully believe that this responsibility is that of the parents, not societie's as a whole.
The Commons - Jessica
Libraries want to freely circulate information rather than putting a price tag on information.
If they put a price on every reading material, they are only hurting society. This is where the contrast between libraries and a public commons comes in place. For example, if I need to pay even a couple dollars to get an article, I won’t get it because I don’t want it bad enough. That could be a very potential risk for online articles that ask for money. When it’s free more people will participate. It all comes back to what we’ve talked about, how the information we know and have learned is usually not originally ours, but borrowed and learned from someone else.
I like the term commons, and how they describe the purpose of it. When I think of commons, I always think of a place where everyone gathers together for one reason or another. It’s a great term to describe how libraries can be used in the future. The name demonstrates an open free place for discussion of any type. The library, a free source of information that belongs to the public, should not be privatized to make more money. What would life look like if most information on the internet was free for public use? We could be so much more knowledgeable and be bettering society in a million different ways. As they stated in the commons article, the most important gift we can give to society is the ability to educate our children, give the citizens information they need to make good choices, and continually restructure our culture by giving and taking traditions. The commons website was great to look at as I didn’t have trouble accessing any of the articles. I felt empowered to look at information and grow as a person with the accessibility to information.
Vaidhyanathan describes the internet library of information heading towards becoming an anarchy, where our government is in control of it all. This puts limitations on information giving and peer-to-peer sharing of information. He, like Bollier, is worried about the concealment of information on the internet. He is scared that the government will have so much control over the internet that they will be crushing the democracy that we have by controlling what we can look at, give out, and use to better ourselves. They can make money off of it, by putting a price tag on the resources we want to get. The internet should not be this way at all. If we really want to grow in the future, I agree with both of these authors that we need to have a common internet library, where information is free to give and take.
The Commons: KMot
David Bollier believes that libraries are very important to have public libraries because of the availability of knowledge. Being able to educate children is so important to people and for cheap or free. Future is everything and having public libraries to serve as an asset to kids is crucial. To me, having a hard copy of something in front of me is way easier to access than the internet. Libraries are a great too to utilize. I enjoy going into the peace and quiet and being able to be completely reserved and do my own thing in a library without having to spend money. People who are used to having free information provided are not going to feel the same way about having to spend money on such a commodity.
"Anarchy in the library" is defined as information being able to have very easy access and the ablitiy to be relatively easy to find. Information is easiy accessed through the library systems so it is deemed to be a powerful utility. Vaidhhyanathan has high hopes that we use our resources wisely because it is such a smart tool that needs to be utilitized correctly.
"Anarchy in the library" is defined as information being able to have very easy access and the ablitiy to be relatively easy to find. Information is easiy accessed through the library systems so it is deemed to be a powerful utility. Vaidhhyanathan has high hopes that we use our resources wisely because it is such a smart tool that needs to be utilitized correctly.
Monday, September 27, 2010
The Commons: Britt
1. According to David Bollier, libraries are absolutely essential in a democracy. This is because when you go to a library you are not limited to how many books you can read or limited to the degree of information you would like to learn. Bollier said, "They are committed to the free flow of knowledge, which is indispensable in a democracy." The fact that libraries provide infinite amounts of knowledge just waiting for people to utilize is an incredible thing. There are so many things I would love to know about this world, and I feel a library book would do me more justice than a Google search, for example. In saying that, libraries and the Internet are very much alike. They both provide free services, most of the time, to facts, ideas and concepts we want to know more or learn about.
2. Siva Vaidhyanathan describes "anarchy in the library" by basically saying there is no control within the library system, yet that's what everyone wants: control. But, then again, there are people out there such as educators, artists and hackers who are trying to promote "liberating information". But, that in itself is a form of control as well because it's a way of changing things from the "norm". Vaidhyanathan essentially hopes there will some day be a balance between corporate control of the public libraries and consumers out in the world who simply want to share or obtain knowledge.
2. Siva Vaidhyanathan describes "anarchy in the library" by basically saying there is no control within the library system, yet that's what everyone wants: control. But, then again, there are people out there such as educators, artists and hackers who are trying to promote "liberating information". But, that in itself is a form of control as well because it's a way of changing things from the "norm". Vaidhyanathan essentially hopes there will some day be a balance between corporate control of the public libraries and consumers out in the world who simply want to share or obtain knowledge.
Commons-Brett C
1. Public libraries help promote democracy in many ways. Bollier introduces us to the idea of libraries as a part of commons: resources for all of mankind that should be sustained for current and future use. Understanding the idea of a library as part of the greater commons helps us understand their usefulness as tools for a democratic society: conducive to learning and expanding knowledge. They are tools for empowerment. Libraries are resources that allow people to uncover knowledge as prescribed by people before them, while allowing them to build upon this knowledge to provide insight into meaning construction and development. Privatizing the commons as is trying to be imposed by some, works to de-construct the democratic construction and spread of knowledge.
Bollier puts internet in the category of commons along with libraries. Just as rules, laws and regulations are being enacted to make certain the use of internet and its resources are strictly regulated to the highest extent of the law, we are warned to be careful as these same ideas are sure to be though to be imposed on libraries. The way we enjoy our collection of information could be altered by big corporation lobbyist working to regulate the use of their products, services, and knowledge. Like the internet, libraries need to be utilized as primary sources of a wide-range of invaluable information for use by all as part of the commons.
2. "Anarchy in the Library," as portrayed by Vaidhyanathan refers to the empowerment achieved through access to information in the library. I agree that we need to take a critical look at the limits we are imposing on ourselves when placing limits or bans on content, use and availability of information. proposes that the common use of simple technological fixes to "combat a complex social or cultural phenomenon" can often end up causing additional problems or undermining the flow of information systems. The point of this work seems to be directed at really understanding the pros and cons of information availability and its social value for humanity as a whole. Limiting our resources limits our growth as a society and may have harmful impacts on future social, economic, scientific, and technological advances.
Bollier puts internet in the category of commons along with libraries. Just as rules, laws and regulations are being enacted to make certain the use of internet and its resources are strictly regulated to the highest extent of the law, we are warned to be careful as these same ideas are sure to be though to be imposed on libraries. The way we enjoy our collection of information could be altered by big corporation lobbyist working to regulate the use of their products, services, and knowledge. Like the internet, libraries need to be utilized as primary sources of a wide-range of invaluable information for use by all as part of the commons.
2. "Anarchy in the Library," as portrayed by Vaidhyanathan refers to the empowerment achieved through access to information in the library. I agree that we need to take a critical look at the limits we are imposing on ourselves when placing limits or bans on content, use and availability of information. proposes that the common use of simple technological fixes to "combat a complex social or cultural phenomenon" can often end up causing additional problems or undermining the flow of information systems. The point of this work seems to be directed at really understanding the pros and cons of information availability and its social value for humanity as a whole. Limiting our resources limits our growth as a society and may have harmful impacts on future social, economic, scientific, and technological advances.
Andrew The Commons
This article was just so good to read knowing that Bollier still believes in the libraries! One quote that stood out to me the most in the article was“What spectacle can be more edifying or more seasonable, than that of Liberty & Learning, each leaning on the other for their mutual & surest support?” Boiler is a firm believer in the library system and how it works! It is good for Democracy because it helps give jobs, and it help people learn by giving them some very valuable resources in order to succeed and not just telling them to search for information on google. The Library is the perfect place for college students to study! " Librarians realize that the free dissemination of knowledge is not only the highest calling of their profession, but a vital function in our democratic society. Because libraries “give away” information, they educate our children, help citizens make informed choices, and constantly reinvigorate our cultural heritage." Boiler sums this up perfectly! Librarians are just like the Internet but not as fast, they help you find the information and the sources you need for whatever you are looking for. Sometimes it may not be fast like searching on Google but they will get you the accurate information you need. We are very spoiled by all the online resources we have and sometimes people are not evening using the online sources the right way. We are able to look at books online, and site our sources and it just seems like we wont even have use for libraries anymore with how fast we are able to get books electronically.
Siva is describing anarchy in the library first off with the story about the Russian who got arrested for the illegal programming he did knowing he hacked into an American system and messing with Adobe is pretty crazy to think about. We see all those movies with incredible computer hackers doing insane things, and knowing that with technology advances this stuff can happen. I feel like is description of anarchy is the stuff we can obtain for free on the Internet for example pirating music and many others. I feel that he thinks its gonna come down to the people and how the handle certain situations with the flow of information that is going through the Internet. He doesn't like the fact so many different activities on the Internet are going on without some main power is not monitoring over it. I feel like both of these authors feel that the foundation is the library in learning how to access information and do research the right way.
Commons- Sydney
1. These days, when everything seems to be just a click away (on Google, go figure!) people are starting to question the relevance of libraries, as Bollier talks about in his writing. I agree with him immensely, that libraries should not only be seen as “where all those people who can’t afford to buy computers or their own books go.” I love libraries, and I love the freedom I have to go and peruse them and find whatever jumps out at me, books I would never think to look for to buy online, so it broadens my horizons. If this freedom is taken away from us, or if it start to cost money, the few people that still go to libraries will go down considerably, if not to near zero. It’s hard to convince kids that libraries are awesome now a days, and if they have to pay for it, there’s no way they’ll go. This is just going to make educating children harder, and it will make them turn into adults that are not well read and cannot make educated decisions when doing things like voting, which is very important for the future of democracy.
2. The quote from Vaidhyanathan that stood out to me was “Inconvenience was comforting. Potentially dangerous information and alarming expressions only circulated in obscure pockets of subculture or lay undisturbed in inaccessible repositories. The bad stuff was always around. It was just inconvenient to find, distribute, or deploy.” This really is saying a lot. Not only do people have all this extra information at their fingertips, they are using it for more bad than good (according to authorities). The government is taking advantage of this, even arresting and prosecuting people outside our country for hacking into and figuring out an American company, like Adobe. The government is taking away the citizens’ freedom of creativity that was always available to us in libraries, and now are throwing it back in our face by prosecuting those who use it for themselves. It’s like all the good things the internet gives us and allows us to be a part of, the country is trying to do damage control to keep it from being free and public, so someone can be making a buck on it.
2. The quote from Vaidhyanathan that stood out to me was “Inconvenience was comforting. Potentially dangerous information and alarming expressions only circulated in obscure pockets of subculture or lay undisturbed in inaccessible repositories. The bad stuff was always around. It was just inconvenient to find, distribute, or deploy.” This really is saying a lot. Not only do people have all this extra information at their fingertips, they are using it for more bad than good (according to authorities). The government is taking advantage of this, even arresting and prosecuting people outside our country for hacking into and figuring out an American company, like Adobe. The government is taking away the citizens’ freedom of creativity that was always available to us in libraries, and now are throwing it back in our face by prosecuting those who use it for themselves. It’s like all the good things the internet gives us and allows us to be a part of, the country is trying to do damage control to keep it from being free and public, so someone can be making a buck on it.
The Commons- Caitlin
Public libraries are essential for democracy because it is a public source for absolutely everyone to use. It provides the public with a wealth of knowledge for whatever they may need. Bollier states, “librarians have always embodied some of the most fundamental virtues of Western civilization”. Those virtues are what we built our democracy on, so I definitely agree with his statement. We are free to roam around libraries and use all of the resources provided to us including using that information for fun, research, and new creative ideas. Bollier states, “The commons is a generic term that refers to a wide array of creations of nature and society that we inherit freely, share and hold in trust for future generations”. In my opinion, libraries gave meaning to the commons and hold such creations inside of them.
The internet allows users to look through information that is found within the libraries. I need to note that there are some resources and works that are only found in the library and in contrast there are some that are only found on the internet. There are keepers on sites of the web, which could be considered, in their own right, librarians. The function of the internet is very similar to libraries. Today we are able to store whole books and buy whole books on the web. We are able to look up archives and movies which are found in the library. We even have libraries on the internet, such as Rod Library. Both the library and the internet are available and accessible for everyone.
Vaidhyanathan describes “anarchy in the library” as information being too easy and accessible to find. He gets to the idea that the degree in which information is available has become so large, that even dangerous information is out there for everyone to see. I don’t agree with all of his thoughts, but I would not want my children stumbling upon murders and porn sites. He truly believes that anarchists are taking over the libraries and some of our “rights” are getting out of hand because of the amount of information being shared. He hopes to control the outflow of information and put it “back into its toothpaste tube”. He is frightened of too much control because of those who will fight back and create conditions that are even less controllable. He also hopes that people will come together and discuss the issue of how information is controlled today, maybe that will help with how information is being dispersed.
The internet allows users to look through information that is found within the libraries. I need to note that there are some resources and works that are only found in the library and in contrast there are some that are only found on the internet. There are keepers on sites of the web, which could be considered, in their own right, librarians. The function of the internet is very similar to libraries. Today we are able to store whole books and buy whole books on the web. We are able to look up archives and movies which are found in the library. We even have libraries on the internet, such as Rod Library. Both the library and the internet are available and accessible for everyone.
Vaidhyanathan describes “anarchy in the library” as information being too easy and accessible to find. He gets to the idea that the degree in which information is available has become so large, that even dangerous information is out there for everyone to see. I don’t agree with all of his thoughts, but I would not want my children stumbling upon murders and porn sites. He truly believes that anarchists are taking over the libraries and some of our “rights” are getting out of hand because of the amount of information being shared. He hopes to control the outflow of information and put it “back into its toothpaste tube”. He is frightened of too much control because of those who will fight back and create conditions that are even less controllable. He also hopes that people will come together and discuss the issue of how information is controlled today, maybe that will help with how information is being dispersed.
LIB-Derik
Obviously libraries are important for democracy not only because I sit in one at the current time writing this blog, but also because they give us something that's real along with resources we can't obtain elsewhere. In the article the case was made between the real world and cyberspace creating a constant debate between libraries and Internet. Outside of serving up basic information the Internet can't compare especially in large part due to copyright. Libraries are present to spread knowledge with the use of the Internet, but I guarantee if the Internet was taken away and research had to be compiled before entering libraries would not survive long. I remember when we took a trip to the library second semester last year and beforehand the teacher asked who had visited prior. Out of 35 kids only another kid and I had spent a reasonable amount of time in there. I am the furthest thing from a nerd, but the library serves its purpose and without them we close ourselves off from reality even more.
Siva is hoping to stabilize libraries by promoting the positive aspects. His description of anarchy is used by the information we are able to obtain for FREE and share for FREE. He wants us to work through the issues because otherwise the control is left to the government and they want every bit of revenue available. It's like Bettina said in class the other day about the power of the students, similar case here. If we as a society sit back and let things keep unraveling libraries will be gone, but if it's important enough we need to grasp the positives and reverse the pattern. David Bollier and Siva's remarks described libraries as a foundation making it hard to visualize a world without them.
Siva is hoping to stabilize libraries by promoting the positive aspects. His description of anarchy is used by the information we are able to obtain for FREE and share for FREE. He wants us to work through the issues because otherwise the control is left to the government and they want every bit of revenue available. It's like Bettina said in class the other day about the power of the students, similar case here. If we as a society sit back and let things keep unraveling libraries will be gone, but if it's important enough we need to grasp the positives and reverse the pattern. David Bollier and Siva's remarks described libraries as a foundation making it hard to visualize a world without them.
The Commons AOrtman
Public libraries are important for democracy according to David Bollier due to the fact that libraries “give away” information, they educate the children, help citizens make knowledgeable choices, and constantly strengthen our cultural heritage. Public libraries relate to the internet by what’s at hand, by a click of the mouse you are able to access just about anything.
What I think he’s getting at is what we are able to access for information, which what is too much freedom and what is too much information. Siva states that we are able to browse, use, reuse, alter, play with, distribute, share and discuss information at a click of a button. What is too much? What is too much freedom?
Siva hopes we are knowledgeable with what we access because we have so much that it could lead to something unforgivable.
What I think he’s getting at is what we are able to access for information, which what is too much freedom and what is too much information. Siva states that we are able to browse, use, reuse, alter, play with, distribute, share and discuss information at a click of a button. What is too much? What is too much freedom?
Siva hopes we are knowledgeable with what we access because we have so much that it could lead to something unforgivable.
Commons - Lauren
I never go to libraries. The only time I’ve ever gone to a library is when I was forced to go with somebody else. Despite this fact, every time I go to a library, I love it. I think libraries are crucial to democracy. Libraries are almost tangible internets. It’s reading, learning, and sharing materials that are archived for the purpose of dispersing information and entertainment. To take away a library would be to essentially take away the right to share that information and therefore taking away the right to democracy. In libraries sit the history of our freedom and the opportunities of documenting the present to circulate our knowledge throughout the future. Anyone could argue that we don’t need them anymore because we have the internet, but I say no. To me, gold is to the paper dollar as libraries are to the internet. Money would be nothing without gold to back it up and the internet is nothing without the tangible representations that are held within a library.
Vaidhyanathan uses the term “anarchy in the library” to express how information is become uncontrollable. There’s much of it and it’s getting harder to control who has the ability to see something and what exactly they have the ability to see. He talks about how some freedoms are now being looked at as “threatening” because of how powerful they are becoming. The distribution of information is huge. On the internet we can access almost any information that we want whenever we want. Especially when we have search engines, such as Google, that make it easy as typing in a keyword and discovering information you wouldn’t otherwise have easy access to.
In Erin’s post, I also loved the quote that she used from Vaidhyanathan. Some people are seeking ways to diminish the amount of access to information. He says their trying to “force information back into its toothpaste tube”. I think this is such a brilliant quote because as easy as it is to squeeze toothpaste out of the tube, it’s going to be just as hard as trying to put toothpaste back into it’s tube as it is trying to take information out of the public’s hands. There are people today fighting for the very opposite of this because they have a complete opposite view to the “danger” that Vaidhyanathan believes in growing so rapidly. There are people battling on both sides of the circulation and access to information fight. In my opinion, Vaidhyanathan’s hopes are pretty much a lost cause. The world today has taken a drastic turn toward technology and if the internet has anything to say, it’s that information of any kind is going to be shared 24/7 until the internet itself becomes completely obsolete.
Vaidhyanathan uses the term “anarchy in the library” to express how information is become uncontrollable. There’s much of it and it’s getting harder to control who has the ability to see something and what exactly they have the ability to see. He talks about how some freedoms are now being looked at as “threatening” because of how powerful they are becoming. The distribution of information is huge. On the internet we can access almost any information that we want whenever we want. Especially when we have search engines, such as Google, that make it easy as typing in a keyword and discovering information you wouldn’t otherwise have easy access to.
In Erin’s post, I also loved the quote that she used from Vaidhyanathan. Some people are seeking ways to diminish the amount of access to information. He says their trying to “force information back into its toothpaste tube”. I think this is such a brilliant quote because as easy as it is to squeeze toothpaste out of the tube, it’s going to be just as hard as trying to put toothpaste back into it’s tube as it is trying to take information out of the public’s hands. There are people today fighting for the very opposite of this because they have a complete opposite view to the “danger” that Vaidhyanathan believes in growing so rapidly. There are people battling on both sides of the circulation and access to information fight. In my opinion, Vaidhyanathan’s hopes are pretty much a lost cause. The world today has taken a drastic turn toward technology and if the internet has anything to say, it’s that information of any kind is going to be shared 24/7 until the internet itself becomes completely obsolete.
Megan W. - Libraries
At the beginning of his speech, Bollier quotes an inscription- "What spectacle can be more edifying or more seasonable, than that of Liberty & Learning, each leaning on the other for their mutual and surest support?"
He then argues that "the linkages between Learning and Liberty have never been more fragile, or more important than today."
This link between learning and liberty illustrates the importance of libraries in a democratic society beautifully. Democracy is based on personal freedoms and liberties- while learning is based on access to knowledge (which libraries provide!). So, our liberty depends on our access to knowledge, and our access to knowledge depends upon the liberties granted to us. If our freedom to access knowledge decreases, so will our knowledge. If our access to knowledge decreases, so will our freedoms.
I really like the "knowledge as water" metaphor that he uses. He explains that libraries help information "flow" in a way that makes it a common resource, accessible by all.
Libraries provide us with that access to knowledge- and we are given the freedoms to access any knowledge that we'd like (that the libraries provide). Libraries ensure that we are able to acquire knowledge that we would like to acquire. This is essential in a democratic society.
The internet presents an entirely different kind of access to knowledge, but an access to knowledge nonetheless. Libraries and the internet share the function of providing access to knowledge. Many people seem to think that the internet can "replace" libraries. However, the internet is subject to so many copyright threats. People are fighting to control and filter the information that is on the internet. So, if they win, and we also don't have any libraries- then how will access information? Where will the cultural commons be "held" and distributed to us? Libraries ensure that the cultural commons is preserved and taken care of. The internet is rapidly changing- which can be a good thing, but with so many people fighting for control of it- who will ensure that our cultural commons are is taken care of? This is where libraries come in. It isn't as if the internet and libraries have to be conflicting sources of information. They can give and take from each other as needed. Bollier mentions several online libraries and digital archives. If libraries embrace the advantages of the internet, they will likely be able to thrive in these uncertain times.
Vaidhyanathan's idea of "anarchy in the library" is referring to the governing of knowledge BY the PEOPLE. For some reason, we seem afraid of anarchy with regards to knowledge (the internet for example). I think he is kind of pointing out that maybe anarchy should rule- in the libraries- in our knowledge. It shouldn't be "owned" or "regulated" by a central power. He argues that the tension between anarchy and oligarchy has always been present, and always will be. His hope is that people will actually TALK about it and come to some happy medium. He recognizes the limits and dangers of anarchy as a form of government- but argues that oligarchy is not the solution. People tend to "buy into" one of these extremes. Many are afraid of one or both extremes. Why can't there be a middle ground? He wants us to find that middle ground, especially with regards to knowledge. If we aren't ok with anarchy in knowledge, we don't need to go to the other extreme, we can find a middle ground.
He then argues that "the linkages between Learning and Liberty have never been more fragile, or more important than today."
This link between learning and liberty illustrates the importance of libraries in a democratic society beautifully. Democracy is based on personal freedoms and liberties- while learning is based on access to knowledge (which libraries provide!). So, our liberty depends on our access to knowledge, and our access to knowledge depends upon the liberties granted to us. If our freedom to access knowledge decreases, so will our knowledge. If our access to knowledge decreases, so will our freedoms.
I really like the "knowledge as water" metaphor that he uses. He explains that libraries help information "flow" in a way that makes it a common resource, accessible by all.
Libraries provide us with that access to knowledge- and we are given the freedoms to access any knowledge that we'd like (that the libraries provide). Libraries ensure that we are able to acquire knowledge that we would like to acquire. This is essential in a democratic society.
The internet presents an entirely different kind of access to knowledge, but an access to knowledge nonetheless. Libraries and the internet share the function of providing access to knowledge. Many people seem to think that the internet can "replace" libraries. However, the internet is subject to so many copyright threats. People are fighting to control and filter the information that is on the internet. So, if they win, and we also don't have any libraries- then how will access information? Where will the cultural commons be "held" and distributed to us? Libraries ensure that the cultural commons is preserved and taken care of. The internet is rapidly changing- which can be a good thing, but with so many people fighting for control of it- who will ensure that our cultural commons are is taken care of? This is where libraries come in. It isn't as if the internet and libraries have to be conflicting sources of information. They can give and take from each other as needed. Bollier mentions several online libraries and digital archives. If libraries embrace the advantages of the internet, they will likely be able to thrive in these uncertain times.
Vaidhyanathan's idea of "anarchy in the library" is referring to the governing of knowledge BY the PEOPLE. For some reason, we seem afraid of anarchy with regards to knowledge (the internet for example). I think he is kind of pointing out that maybe anarchy should rule- in the libraries- in our knowledge. It shouldn't be "owned" or "regulated" by a central power. He argues that the tension between anarchy and oligarchy has always been present, and always will be. His hope is that people will actually TALK about it and come to some happy medium. He recognizes the limits and dangers of anarchy as a form of government- but argues that oligarchy is not the solution. People tend to "buy into" one of these extremes. Many are afraid of one or both extremes. Why can't there be a middle ground? He wants us to find that middle ground, especially with regards to knowledge. If we aren't ok with anarchy in knowledge, we don't need to go to the other extreme, we can find a middle ground.
The Commons
1. The best way to sum up why public libraries are important for democracy is to look at Bollier's statement, "Once you put a pay-per-use meter on the act of reading and research, you turn a culture into a marketplace, which is something very different indeed. A marketplace serves an audience of consumers. But a library serves a nation of citizens." Libraries provide free information to open and strengthen the minds of the public. Democracies thrive on the freedom from censorship, and libraries are excellent resources upon which democratic societies can depend to supply knowledge. The way this discussion of public libraries relates to the internet is that the internet, as we have discussed in class, is a public domain containing an enormous volume of free information. We are at risk of the internet becoming over-regulated by corporate interests who desire to turn the internet into even more of a marketplace, and are not concerned with information pertaining to public interests.
2. Vaidhyanthan's anarchy in the library refers to rejection of censorship. His reading directly relates to Bollier's, as both discuss information flow. Multiple people have commented in their blogs about Vaidhyanthan's toothpaste analogy; Caitlin, Lauren, and Erin all made note of this in their posts. I can see why this caught their attention as I've found myself giving this example some thought. One of Vaidhyanthan's hopes is that we can control information to a certain extent, and somehow place some of it back in the toothpaste tube. Personally, I would agree with Caitlin on this topic. I love Americans' first amendment right, and I would be opposed to anyone trying to suppress information flow.
-Ryan Stefani
2. Vaidhyanthan's anarchy in the library refers to rejection of censorship. His reading directly relates to Bollier's, as both discuss information flow. Multiple people have commented in their blogs about Vaidhyanthan's toothpaste analogy; Caitlin, Lauren, and Erin all made note of this in their posts. I can see why this caught their attention as I've found myself giving this example some thought. One of Vaidhyanthan's hopes is that we can control information to a certain extent, and somehow place some of it back in the toothpaste tube. Personally, I would agree with Caitlin on this topic. I love Americans' first amendment right, and I would be opposed to anyone trying to suppress information flow.
-Ryan Stefani
The Commons - Heather
Public libraries are the mechanism for which our society disseminates information freely. This free sharing of information allows for debate; without debate democracy cannot exist. If public libraries cease to exist within our culture, the very threads of our society will change from freedom colors to tones of censorship and control. Our culture will no longer be culture; but a marketplace as Bollier states. Bollier suggests that the libraries is a commons, a place where ideas are freely exchanged and owned not by a corporation but the individuals which comprise it. In effect, if libraries neglect to refute the general ideas view of them as “unnecessary” it will be an abandonment of democracy for a tragic downward spiral of government by the few. While some people feel that libraries are “a waste of taxpayer money ", this is simply not true.
Vaidhyanthan uses the phrase “anarchy in the library” to describe the influence libraries have as a place where ideas are freely shared, and “radical democracy” is allowed to reign through the dissemination of free information. He describes this anarchy as a fight against oligarchy’s desire to control people through strict govern of how, when, and for what purposes information can be accessed. Thus, the battle against oligarchy is occurring in our libraries. Libraries that are now being considered “dens for terrorists” rather than havens of knowledge.
Vaidhyanthan has many hopes. For the book; to encourage serious thought into what freedoms are truly dangerous. To both identify and criticize societies moral panic that is causing many to argue that freedom is getting out of hand. This cry against freedom is due to informations easy accessibility. Now that porn and the newest marketing trend are equally accessible, people are running scared. However, Siva argues that despite the changing world we live in we should refrain from trying to filter information and restrict communication flows. The consequences of this restriction against our democratic state can be dire. For society, Vaidhyanthan hopes; That an energized web of people will come together to openly debate how information is controlled. That fresh vocabulary will be created to discuss the ideas of anarchy vs. oligopoly and the place of “the commons” will be evaluated. Mostly, Vaidhyanthan hopes that through this discussion a new protocol will be implement that will improve democracy, instead of tearing it apart.
Vaidhyanthan uses the phrase “anarchy in the library” to describe the influence libraries have as a place where ideas are freely shared, and “radical democracy” is allowed to reign through the dissemination of free information. He describes this anarchy as a fight against oligarchy’s desire to control people through strict govern of how, when, and for what purposes information can be accessed. Thus, the battle against oligarchy is occurring in our libraries. Libraries that are now being considered “dens for terrorists” rather than havens of knowledge.
Vaidhyanthan has many hopes. For the book; to encourage serious thought into what freedoms are truly dangerous. To both identify and criticize societies moral panic that is causing many to argue that freedom is getting out of hand. This cry against freedom is due to informations easy accessibility. Now that porn and the newest marketing trend are equally accessible, people are running scared. However, Siva argues that despite the changing world we live in we should refrain from trying to filter information and restrict communication flows. The consequences of this restriction against our democratic state can be dire. For society, Vaidhyanthan hopes; That an energized web of people will come together to openly debate how information is controlled. That fresh vocabulary will be created to discuss the ideas of anarchy vs. oligopoly and the place of “the commons” will be evaluated. Mostly, Vaidhyanthan hopes that through this discussion a new protocol will be implement that will improve democracy, instead of tearing it apart.
Commons - Erin
1. I really liked this speech. There is such a direct link between libraries and the education of free people, and Bollier emphasizes the fact that they are key to a productive democracy. He says that libraries “have always embodied some of the most fundamental virtues of Western Civilization. They are dedicated to the freedom to read and learn and share information. They are committed to the free flow of knowledge, which is indispensable in a democracy.”
2. When Vaidhyanathan refers to “anarchy in the library” he is referring to the state of disorder and panic that seems to be increasing within our information system because of the lack of control. He fears that harsher control of this increasingly massive realm of information is inevitable, and when such limitations are implemented, the way we “browse, use, reuse, alter, play with, distribute, share, and discuss information” will be threatened. Using these methods are vital for our society’s continued awareness and education. He says that “these are valuable behaviors that help creators and citizens shape their worlds.”
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Commons- Kacie
1) Public libraries are very important for democracy because it allows the freedom for all to read and learn as we please. Without this free knowledge, the people of our country would be sorely uneducated and possibly illiterate. As a child, I adored going to the library to check out books. Reading was and is one of my favorite pastimes. As a college student, I don’t have enough money to constantly buy books from a store or information from a website. Without these free educational sources, we would lack the intelligence to run an efficient government and country. Bollier states that the “linkages between Learning and Liberty have never been more fragile, or more important, than today”. It is crucial that we fight for our right to keep these resources free for the good of all. If we don’t stand up for ourselves, no one will.
The function of public libraries relate to the internet because we use this medium to utilize their resources. We now have online libraries where books can be read for free. Many university libraries also provide free databases for scholarly journals. Bollier explains that this has created a “digital common” in which we can use these resources. Surprisingly, these types of information commons “are able to produce and distribute information and creative works more efficiently than Centralized Media”.
2) I think what Vaidhyanathan is trying to explain through describing anarchy in the library is that there is a continuing threat that the freedom of accessing information is becoming larger. Whether the freedom is that information is available at no cost or one must pay to retrieve the knowledge; the phenomenon is becoming less and less controllable. Vaidhyanathan describes this situation as he compares it to an arms race, the “locust man”, patented genes, and others. Each of these instances happened because of some law prohibiting or reducing the accessibility to something that was once rightfully owned by the people. This could be free speech, personal ethics, or genetic testing. Simply put, Vaidhyanathan states that the “cultural and technological trends are increasing freedom in ways many people find threatening”. This may be why people feel a need to regulate information by putting a price on the content. Can’t we decide for ourselves what we should or should not read? Apparently not.
Because of this debate, Vaidhyanathan hopes “to prompt more careful thinking about how much and which freedoms are excessive or dangerous” and “to identify and criticize ‘moral panics’ engendered by the common perception that freedoms are getting out of hand, that the anarchists are taking over the libraries” (p.xii).
Friday, September 24, 2010
The Commons - Kate
1. To quote the end of Bollier's remarks, "Ecologists often speak of 'keystone' species; if they die off or go extinct, a whole arc of other species will die off or go as well. I regard libraries as a 'keystone' institution of American democracy. Take it away and many other institutions and traditions of our democracy will suffer." Public domain - or "cutural commons," as it is referred to by Bollier, is essential to continue to build upon knowledge. If each person had to start fresh, and couldn't build upon the ideas and inventions of others, our world would cease to exist. It is because of this commons that our society has grown to where we are today. Those who agree with copyright theory think the commons is a bad thing because it doesn't offer monetary value to anyone. They want to see everything put into a market of consumers to generate capital; the commons are for a community to build knowledge, culture, lifestyles, and so on. Public libraries relate to the Internet in the respect that they are both commons. Yes, they are overseen by people - "trustees" as they are referred to by Bollier. The commons are not a free-for-all. There has to be some sort of management in order to keep things together and under control. However, the libraries and the Internet are in danger of being in control of companies or organizations that seek to control and make money from them, rather than be there for the good of the communities.
2. Vaidhyanathan says that, "Anarchy is radical democracy" (xvii). He also says that, whether we are a fan of it or not, we need to understand it because "anarchy matters" (xvi). He is describing anarchy in the library because we have entered this digital age where information is just too easy to find. You name it, the Internet can probably provide it. Vaidhyanathan had a great section in the introduction where he talked about the fact that, while this obscure and sometimes dangerous information has always been there, now the masses can find that information with relative ease. He called this the "collapse of inconvenience." I love that phrase. I don't know that you could find a better phrase to express what has happened. While our society should want this generous sharing of information that is going on, he acknowledges that people are seeing the potential ramifications and are panicking and cracking down. He argues that, if laws and rules are going to be put in place, our society should do so only after much sober deliberation and only after weighing all of the pros and cons. Bollier and Vaidhyanathan are both proponents of allowing this mass of information that we learned and sharing it with the populace for the greater good of humanity - not for the love of capitalism.
2. Vaidhyanathan says that, "Anarchy is radical democracy" (xvii). He also says that, whether we are a fan of it or not, we need to understand it because "anarchy matters" (xvi). He is describing anarchy in the library because we have entered this digital age where information is just too easy to find. You name it, the Internet can probably provide it. Vaidhyanathan had a great section in the introduction where he talked about the fact that, while this obscure and sometimes dangerous information has always been there, now the masses can find that information with relative ease. He called this the "collapse of inconvenience." I love that phrase. I don't know that you could find a better phrase to express what has happened. While our society should want this generous sharing of information that is going on, he acknowledges that people are seeing the potential ramifications and are panicking and cracking down. He argues that, if laws and rules are going to be put in place, our society should do so only after much sober deliberation and only after weighing all of the pros and cons. Bollier and Vaidhyanathan are both proponents of allowing this mass of information that we learned and sharing it with the populace for the greater good of humanity - not for the love of capitalism.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
1. Ahhhh! I am so much like Dan Firger and I hadn't even thought about it. When I open any browser I almost immediately go to google. I have tons of email address but they all work through my gmail account. I can't live three hours without my google calender going off on my blackberry. I even have my eportfolio through my gmail sites, and I am creating a page for my step father for his business. This is ridiculous how much of google is incorporated in my every day life!
2.Google does a great job of adding on to their company. They used to only be a search engine, now they have their hands in so much more, including youtube. They are not willing at just stopping with what they have, google continues to grow and take on new ideas. Google is apocratic by excelling, then conforming to find the "ladder of success". Google continues to shape itself and it's staff to become the best it can be.
3. From the article it seems like Yahoo wants to be a competitor of Google but personally I don't think they have what it takes. I work at Victoria's Secret and after you make a purchase we have to ask for your email to send you coupons. Just this week I had someone with a Yahoo email address and I almost forgot Yahoo had email, we never have customers with yahoo addresses.
2.Google does a great job of adding on to their company. They used to only be a search engine, now they have their hands in so much more, including youtube. They are not willing at just stopping with what they have, google continues to grow and take on new ideas. Google is apocratic by excelling, then conforming to find the "ladder of success". Google continues to shape itself and it's staff to become the best it can be.
3. From the article it seems like Yahoo wants to be a competitor of Google but personally I don't think they have what it takes. I work at Victoria's Secret and after you make a purchase we have to ask for your email to send you coupons. Just this week I had someone with a Yahoo email address and I almost forgot Yahoo had email, we never have customers with yahoo addresses.
Google-KelsMot
1 -- I feel as though most people share similarities with Dan Firger. When there is research to be done I always look first to Google. It is not common for me to google things everyday but when I need to learn about a certain topic that is the first place i look. Absolutely no part of me wanted to have to worry about setting up a different email however, since I most likely will not be a student forever I was forced to set up a different account with gmail to put on resumes.
2 -- I know absolutely nothing about google's marketing strategies but I, too, have seen segments on highly watched television shows and news broadcasts working on getting googles name out into the public so that everyone will use this search engine. I have never noticed advertisements being a part of google's site so I figure that name dropping is their biggest advertisement.
3 -- Yahoo was always the search engine that I used, as well as most of the people I was in contact with. Since I had the internet I always had a yahoo account and a hotmail account. They were the two most commonly used engines as far as I am concerned. To this day, I never use yahoo and I feel as though it is very outdated and in serious need of a new webmaster to update the site. Something needs to be done for yahoo to be even close to being used as much as google is these days.
2 -- I know absolutely nothing about google's marketing strategies but I, too, have seen segments on highly watched television shows and news broadcasts working on getting googles name out into the public so that everyone will use this search engine. I have never noticed advertisements being a part of google's site so I figure that name dropping is their biggest advertisement.
3 -- Yahoo was always the search engine that I used, as well as most of the people I was in contact with. Since I had the internet I always had a yahoo account and a hotmail account. They were the two most commonly used engines as far as I am concerned. To this day, I never use yahoo and I feel as though it is very outdated and in serious need of a new webmaster to update the site. Something needs to be done for yahoo to be even close to being used as much as google is these days.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Google- Ryan Danger Stefani
Just by skimming through some classmates' posts I think I'm about in the middle when it comes to how alike we are to Dan Firger. Some, like Andrew, for example, are apparently very dependent on Google. Others, like Ryan and Spencer, use Google for some of their computer needs but not others. I recently switched to Gmail because the UNI email system is HORRENDOUS. They don't have enough storage space for your inbox and deleting mail is the opposite of user friendly, you can't easily see sent mail, and they make you change your password all the time. I guess where I'm going with this is that as a result of other, lesser sites' inability to satisfy user needs, Google has a competitive advantage in that it has the latest innovative technologies at its disposal to satisfy more users' needs. This is where I find myself falling into habits like Firger's and becoming dependent on Google.
Google is aptocratic in the sense that it, as the reading indicated, clearly sees each rung of the ladder it needs to climb on its way to the top. The makers of Google have a good grasp on where the world is heading, and know how to adapt their business model and advertising to fit the world's changing needs. For instance, Google made itself more desirable and extended its reach by acquiring YouTube. YouTube is an excellent way for Google to spread its roots even further and reach more people with their advertisements, thereby making more money and making more people depend on them.
Google vs Yahoo!! I'm glad this came up as a topic for discussion on the blog because it's something I've been pondering for a while. I don't really know what happened to Yahoo, but I distinctly remember my reason for preferring Google: the home page. Yahoo's home page was riddled with advertisements, making it obnoxiously crowded and irritating to conduct a search. Google's home screen is spotless, with the nice, organized Google letters all perfectly aligned, with hardly anything else but the search bar. Now, I have no clue as to whether this had enough of an impact on other people like it did on me to get us to the point where we are today, which is with Google dominating former competitors like Yahoo, but that's my input.
Google is aptocratic in the sense that it, as the reading indicated, clearly sees each rung of the ladder it needs to climb on its way to the top. The makers of Google have a good grasp on where the world is heading, and know how to adapt their business model and advertising to fit the world's changing needs. For instance, Google made itself more desirable and extended its reach by acquiring YouTube. YouTube is an excellent way for Google to spread its roots even further and reach more people with their advertisements, thereby making more money and making more people depend on them.
Google vs Yahoo!! I'm glad this came up as a topic for discussion on the blog because it's something I've been pondering for a while. I don't really know what happened to Yahoo, but I distinctly remember my reason for preferring Google: the home page. Yahoo's home page was riddled with advertisements, making it obnoxiously crowded and irritating to conduct a search. Google's home screen is spotless, with the nice, organized Google letters all perfectly aligned, with hardly anything else but the search bar. Now, I have no clue as to whether this had enough of an impact on other people like it did on me to get us to the point where we are today, which is with Google dominating former competitors like Yahoo, but that's my input.
Google-Brett C
I find myself relating to Dan Firger in the multitude of ways I find myself utilizing google products each day. I found myself using google calendar on my phone everyday just as Mr. Firger did. This year I have not utilized this service as i did last year, however I have began using other services. These services include Gmail, Google Sites which I have used to create my own personal website in conjunction with google analytics to monitor sight activity on my web page. I often use google chrome as my browser because I like its user friendly and customizable search options as well as its fast links to websites. Unlike Firger, I do not see myself as worried of the impact google has on my life and of the dominance of the services included in my everyday life.
I really don't know a lot about Google's advertising strategies, however through my own website and use of Google analytics I am sure they are constantly collecting user data to direct targeted information at users that would find certain information useful. I know that google owns Youtube among many other companies. Google is aptocratic by the way they form their business structure and strategies. Aptocrats excel in "regimented procedures," seen through "quantifiable achievement." I see google as a company that values quantifiable results and company configuration as it looks to expand its reach into more and more diverse technological markets.
What did happen to Yahoo!? It's hard for me to try and find just what Yahoo lacked in the search engine department to make google surpass it in use and popularity. I'm guessing that's the million-dollar question yahoo is searching for as well. It seems like, for me google was able to adapt into several on-line markets that are uniquely user friendly and user-integrated to fit into my needs and life. I can see and agree with what Ryan was saying how yahoo has a very different look and feel on its homepage than google does. Yahoo seems to be focusing on catering to different needs and interests of people. Yahoo's success will be in its ability to evolve, integrate new markets, and create cutting edge uses for its consumers.
I really don't know a lot about Google's advertising strategies, however through my own website and use of Google analytics I am sure they are constantly collecting user data to direct targeted information at users that would find certain information useful. I know that google owns Youtube among many other companies. Google is aptocratic by the way they form their business structure and strategies. Aptocrats excel in "regimented procedures," seen through "quantifiable achievement." I see google as a company that values quantifiable results and company configuration as it looks to expand its reach into more and more diverse technological markets.
What did happen to Yahoo!? It's hard for me to try and find just what Yahoo lacked in the search engine department to make google surpass it in use and popularity. I'm guessing that's the million-dollar question yahoo is searching for as well. It seems like, for me google was able to adapt into several on-line markets that are uniquely user friendly and user-integrated to fit into my needs and life. I can see and agree with what Ryan was saying how yahoo has a very different look and feel on its homepage than google does. Yahoo seems to be focusing on catering to different needs and interests of people. Yahoo's success will be in its ability to evolve, integrate new markets, and create cutting edge uses for its consumers.
Google- Andrew
I am one hundred percent like Dan Firger in that I use google for about one hundred percent of my research. When I am doing research for my communication courses or just any class for school I use google scholar. It is amazing all the academic articles you can find with just searching one word, for example I was searching for academic articles on proxemics the other day and found thousands of articles! Google is such a life saver too when you need to find a quick fact about something as well, a new term I think that our generation has used a lot is when we dint know something " GOOGLE IT!" I also use GMail now, it is amazing all the space it holds for emails, google docs to send people, and you can even video chat now! They just are making everything so easy and convenient. Google Image search is a very hip thing, when you need some quick pictures of anything you can find thousands of images of everything I love it! Google maps is a much better source then mapquest, it has much more accurate directions and does not give you unnecssary side routes. The best thing about google is google earth, enough said!
I remember watching a segment on the today show about the best places to work and the number one place in America to work was for GOOGLE! They have tons of employees! They are smart with advertising and dont let people know they are using advertised too. They could be like facebook and have tons of ads on the side of there page but they do not! They probably get a share from companies wanting there site to be the first one that comes up when someone searches it on google. Google is Aptocratic cause they do hire the best people, they hire the best of the best.
I used to use Yahoo a ton before google started making its name. It is a solid place to search now but doesnt get as many hits as google. I feel like they were not able to keep up with google. They can not figure out there own simple way to provide searches, they have way to crowded of pages at the front of there page and its hard to figure out sometime what you are looking for where with google you just have to type it in then all the searches come up. I feel yahoo is combining ideas from many other search engine sites to make the ultimate site but its just way to messy on front and needs to trim down a bit in my opinion.
I remember watching a segment on the today show about the best places to work and the number one place in America to work was for GOOGLE! They have tons of employees! They are smart with advertising and dont let people know they are using advertised too. They could be like facebook and have tons of ads on the side of there page but they do not! They probably get a share from companies wanting there site to be the first one that comes up when someone searches it on google. Google is Aptocratic cause they do hire the best people, they hire the best of the best.
I used to use Yahoo a ton before google started making its name. It is a solid place to search now but doesnt get as many hits as google. I feel like they were not able to keep up with google. They can not figure out there own simple way to provide searches, they have way to crowded of pages at the front of there page and its hard to figure out sometime what you are looking for where with google you just have to type it in then all the searches come up. I feel yahoo is combining ideas from many other search engine sites to make the ultimate site but its just way to messy on front and needs to trim down a bit in my opinion.
Google- Sydney
I am like Dan Firger in that I also use Google very often. I use Google automatically when I’m searching for things online. All my preliminary searches for school research starts with Google of Google Scholar, and I use the links they provide to further research the subject. Whenever I can’t figure something out or I’m curious about something, my friend Scott will always just say “Google It”. It’s literally becoming a verb! Which I find pretty amusing. I also use Gmail now, only since this semester when we got it for this class, though! But now my UNI Email goes through there too, and I use it for everything! I don’t use all the products Google has to offer like Dan does, but I’m sure someday I’ll be using more and more.
Google doesn’t have a lot of advertisements on their website, and I don’t really see ads for Google on other sites or anywhere else. I think the reason for this is because it’s so widespread and universal, people already use it all the time! They don’t need to advertise to keep users, because they’re keeping up with what the people want changed and up-to-date, and it’s not like there are many people who have never heard of Google, since they’re so popular, so if someone wants to try it, they do. Google has lots of features; Gmail, Google Earth, Google Maps, Image search, Google Scholar, Google News, as well as many, many more, therefore so many people use it because it has so many different applications and uses.
To me, Yahoo was the first search engine everybody knew about, when the internet was fresh and new. After Google began, it just got better and better and eventually outgrew what Yahoo could do. Google is much better at taking suggestions and keeping on the cutting edge of technology (like their very new Google Instant search) whereas Yahoo seems to be as it always was. If it does make changes, they seem to be behind Google, just following in their footsteps. I don’t know if they can ever catch back up!
Google doesn’t have a lot of advertisements on their website, and I don’t really see ads for Google on other sites or anywhere else. I think the reason for this is because it’s so widespread and universal, people already use it all the time! They don’t need to advertise to keep users, because they’re keeping up with what the people want changed and up-to-date, and it’s not like there are many people who have never heard of Google, since they’re so popular, so if someone wants to try it, they do. Google has lots of features; Gmail, Google Earth, Google Maps, Image search, Google Scholar, Google News, as well as many, many more, therefore so many people use it because it has so many different applications and uses.
To me, Yahoo was the first search engine everybody knew about, when the internet was fresh and new. After Google began, it just got better and better and eventually outgrew what Yahoo could do. Google is much better at taking suggestions and keeping on the cutting edge of technology (like their very new Google Instant search) whereas Yahoo seems to be as it always was. If it does make changes, they seem to be behind Google, just following in their footsteps. I don’t know if they can ever catch back up!
Google!-Keisha
1) I think most people are a little like Dan Firger. I know I am. I use Google all the time. When I say all the time I mean I use it pretty much everyday. Google search is the main thing I use. I do have a gmail account but I haven't had it for very long. I know that Google offers a lot of other things like Google docs but I haven't had a reason to mess with any of that stuff yet. I think Google is awesome. In the article we read it said, "Google has in the minds of many users "become one with the internet." I think that is so true. When I think of the internet Google is the first thing that comes to mind (facebook is second). It's kind of crazy how it has totally taken over.
2) I don't really know a whole lot about Google's advertising strategies. I know that Google makes a ton of it's money from advertising. I know that Google owns YouTube. It also owns a lot of other things but I'm not sure what they are. I guess I've never researched Google. I probably should though since it's kind of a big deal these days. Google is getting bigger because we continue to use it all the time. We are helping it grow and expand.
Google is aptocratic because they hire the "best of the best." They hire people who excel on standardized tests. They have very high expectations. It doesn't matter what social status you have, or what gender you are, or what ethnicity you are if you an "aptocrat" Google wants you.
3) I have no idea what happend to Yahoo. I feel like one day it was huge and then the next day it was living in Google's shadow, where it is now stuck. Yahoo! has all these plans to improve, but I dont' think it will ever be as big as Google. Google has pretty much taken over and I don't think it can be stopped. I never use Yahoo! for anything and I don't know many people who do. I think Yahoo! would have to make some major changes to even come close to being as big as Google.
2) I don't really know a whole lot about Google's advertising strategies. I know that Google makes a ton of it's money from advertising. I know that Google owns YouTube. It also owns a lot of other things but I'm not sure what they are. I guess I've never researched Google. I probably should though since it's kind of a big deal these days. Google is getting bigger because we continue to use it all the time. We are helping it grow and expand.
Google is aptocratic because they hire the "best of the best." They hire people who excel on standardized tests. They have very high expectations. It doesn't matter what social status you have, or what gender you are, or what ethnicity you are if you an "aptocrat" Google wants you.
3) I have no idea what happend to Yahoo. I feel like one day it was huge and then the next day it was living in Google's shadow, where it is now stuck. Yahoo! has all these plans to improve, but I dont' think it will ever be as big as Google. Google has pretty much taken over and I don't think it can be stopped. I never use Yahoo! for anything and I don't know many people who do. I think Yahoo! would have to make some major changes to even come close to being as big as Google.
Google - Ryan B
I guess I'm partially like Dan. Like many of the students on this blog I use Google for searching, researching, photo search, email and just general information. However I havnt gone to the exstent Dan has and have Google text me everytime I have something important coming up. I'd like to think I can still remember dates and times without the help of a server 2000 miles away...although the idea is pretty cool. I was at one point really big into Yahoo seacrh and email but in the last year or two I have found myself really becoming attached to Google. It is now my primary search engine and who knows, maybe one day I will let Google text me important information I need to remember.
I dont know too much about Google marketing strategies. I do know the company has featered itself on a few televison programs boasting what a great it is to work for so obviously that gets the name out there. I think Google really desont have to advertise itself like newer search engines do like Bing. The name Google is more than a name, its a word we use in everyday life...that right there is advertisement enough. Google owns many search engines on the web which gives it power in the cyber world and recently we all know that they teamed up with Verizon to realease the Android powered by Google. Google will only continue to grow because, yes, they are Aptocratic. They continue to buy up other sites and companies and fund and test new technologies so they can climb the ladder of success and be the best. Becaus eof this Google will only become bigger and more Aptocratic.
Yahoo I beleive is trying to get away from complete competition with Google. Yes they are both seacrh engines and yes they both offer email among other services. However the clear difference is in their home pages. Google's is simple with just the trademark GOOGLE on it with the a space to type your search in. The Yahoo page is bust and full of news stories, the days weather, current happenings in your area, etc... Yahoo to this day however, cant be accessed without a pop-up of the latest tv series or newest movie coming out. Google stays away from that and I think that is what has steered people in the Google direction. That, and lest face it...its more fun to say "just Google it" than it is to say, "just Yahoo it."
I dont know too much about Google marketing strategies. I do know the company has featered itself on a few televison programs boasting what a great it is to work for so obviously that gets the name out there. I think Google really desont have to advertise itself like newer search engines do like Bing. The name Google is more than a name, its a word we use in everyday life...that right there is advertisement enough. Google owns many search engines on the web which gives it power in the cyber world and recently we all know that they teamed up with Verizon to realease the Android powered by Google. Google will only continue to grow because, yes, they are Aptocratic. They continue to buy up other sites and companies and fund and test new technologies so they can climb the ladder of success and be the best. Becaus eof this Google will only become bigger and more Aptocratic.
Yahoo I beleive is trying to get away from complete competition with Google. Yes they are both seacrh engines and yes they both offer email among other services. However the clear difference is in their home pages. Google's is simple with just the trademark GOOGLE on it with the a space to type your search in. The Yahoo page is bust and full of news stories, the days weather, current happenings in your area, etc... Yahoo to this day however, cant be accessed without a pop-up of the latest tv series or newest movie coming out. Google stays away from that and I think that is what has steered people in the Google direction. That, and lest face it...its more fun to say "just Google it" than it is to say, "just Yahoo it."
Warm Googley Goodness
1.) I feel very much like Dan Firger in many ways. I use Google nearly exclusively in my internet searches and for YouTube. However, in other ways I am ruled by Apple much more than Google. Everything in my day from my alarm clock that ushers me to the Health Beat every morning to the iCal notifications that are synced on my MacBook laptop, my iMac work desktop, and my iPhone are constantly buzzing all day. Even my music (I know, I'm a chump because I buy my music) from iTunes can be linked, synced, and emailed so that I have them at all times. I do use Gmail, but I also have my @ME address from Apple. Finally, I buck the ultimate bad boy of technology, Microsoft, and run into the omnipotent arms of Apple for Pages, Numbers, and KeyNote as alternatives for Word, Excell, and Powerpoint. In these ways, Dan and I are pretty similar.
2.) Google's advertising strategies are absolutely brilliant. When coming up with a product like Ad-Words, Google revolutionized advertising by not letting people know they were being advertised to. In that way, Google has been a brilliant company that has really lived up to the idea of being technologically revolutionary. As far as Google being aptocratic, I think it's most likely like any company where the rule of aptocratacy can be broken like anything else.
3.) Yahoo is still on the periphery of technology sight. They have moved away from being direct competitors with Google, which is smart. The experience with Yahoo, I believe is, that they are attempting to make it like AOL in the 90's where people go for all web-related experiences, not just mail. I think this is an outdated concept, but it will still be interesting to see what happens to them in the coming years.
Google- Megan W.
I am like Dan because I use Google almost exclusively when I am searching the internet. When I sign on, I'm either checking my email (I have a gmail account), logging in to facebook, or going to Google to search for information that I am looking for. Did I mention I use Google Chrome as my browser?? I hadn't really given this a lot of thought, so I don't partially "resent" my Google usage, like Dan said. But, now that I do think about it, it's kind of strange that I allow my knowledge to rely so much on a single search engine that is run by a corporation. I know they do their best to "do no evil," so that is comforting. But still, it is strange to me that Google essentially controls what I know and do not know- it kind of serves as a gatekeeper between me and the knowledge of the world.
I hardly know anything about Google's advertising strategies, I think I'll Google it, hang on...
Ok, I found a lot of information about how to advertise on Google, but I can't find much about how they advertise themselves. I did find a list of what Google owns, the only thing I recognize was YouTube, but there were probably 20-30 other things listed as well- including communication and graphics companies. On Google's own website, it says it owns 150 domains. I did find this quote on Google's site: at http://www.google.com/corporate/business.html
"While the dotcom boom exploded around it and competitors spent millions on marketing campaigns to "build brand," Google focused instead on quietly building a better search engine."
I also found their philosophy about their business, and it is quite encouraging:
http://www.google.com/corporate/tenthings.html
It does really sound like they are out there to help us and give us information.
They state that their two sources of revenue are advertisements and search services. In regards to how the company will get bigger- I think we've seen this happen in the past few years: launching gmail and Googletalk and purchasing YouTube, and Google Calendar and Googledocs and all these popular "apps." They talk a lot about increasing the personalization of Google so that when each user searches, he or she finds what he/she is looking for, and quickly. I think they hope to grow by continuing to work on increasingly personalized search results. Google is an "Aptocrat" because its entire comapany if formed in aptocratic ways. They hire employees who have proved to score highly on aptitude tests. And their entire system runs on the "aptitude" of search results- which are relevant and which are not. This is all numerically calculated as our search results pop up. Their focus on increasing personalization illustrates this- they are hoping to increase the aptitude of Google to be able to give each user what it wants- Google is becoming better and better at these "personalization aptitude tests" and this is probably why continues to grow.
I personally think that Yahoo just got too crowded and "messy" looking. I completely agree with what Toni Carreiro says in the Planet Google article. Google is simplistic and allows you to just focus on what you are looking for. (If Yahoo was this way and Google was cluttered, I'd pick Yahoo!) There aren't "blinking things" in my way- or pop-ups. I also think that Google is the best at giving me what I'm looking for- which means their personalization campaign sucked me in! After reading the article on Yahoo's plans, it looks like Yahoo is trying to catch up, and maybe they will- who knows??
Google - Lauren
I feel we’re all a little bit like Dan Firger. I haven’t given myself up completely to Google yet, but I’m guilty of furthering Google’s takeover of the world. I find myself using Google search engine, I use the e-mail services, I use Google Chrome web browser, and I also use Google as a verb. “I don’t know what this is. Google it.” It’s a phrase that you’ll hear nowadays whenever someone is in doubt. There have been other search engines, such as Yahoo, and there have been other information services, such as ChaCha or KGB, that try to compete, but nothing compares to the quick, easy, links of Google that bring you to unimaginable places on the web.
I don’t know anything about Google’s advertising strategies. I know that 99% of Google’s revenue is from advertising. I assume that it advertises itself by just being Google. I also assume that it Google makes money by other companies buying space on Google websites to advertise their products. To me, that would add up pretty quickly considering how big Google is. The best place on the internet to advertise anything would be Google since it’s used the most out of any other website (or so it seems). According to mydigmedia.com Google owns TONS of things. Way more than I expected. This includes things I’ve never heard of. Postini, Feedbumer, Adscape, YouTube, Orion, Picassa, Pyra Labs, ZipDash, Android, and many more. Those include photo sharing sites, blogger sites, video sharing, and other ways to share media. Holy crap. Google is Aptocratic because it hires the best of the best of the best. Nothing relies on social status, gender, or ethnicity anymore. It is now only based on aptitude and answers to standardized tests. The Google world is held up to such standards that would only get it to the place it is now, or better. Google will never die, it shall only stay as it is, or get stronger and take over the world.
Surprisingly, Yahoo is still trekking along. Why? I don’t know. I think Google should just buy it out and become the biggest thing since sliced bread. Apparently Yahoo is coming out with newer, faster, better things. Applications that will run faster, a better Yahoo mail experience, new search experiences, yadda yadda yadda. I don’t believe it. In my personal experience, Yahoo has proven disappointing. I hope that it’s telling the truth, otherwise Google IS going to dominate completely. The one thing I think is going to sell the Yahoo “cool” factor is the app for iPad tablets it’s coming out with. Though even if it ads to the functions of Yahoo, it’s only available to iPad buyers which hasn’t prospered enough to become a huge way to reach consumers. In my opinion, Yahoo is just there sometimes. When we see it on something we’re looking at, we don’t really pay attention, and sometimes we don’t even realize it’s there. I hope Yahoo is good with subliminal messages because right now, they’re not doing a great job of selling the stuff we KNOW is theirs. Yahoo better step up its game because Google is stomping on its face.
I don’t know anything about Google’s advertising strategies. I know that 99% of Google’s revenue is from advertising. I assume that it advertises itself by just being Google. I also assume that it Google makes money by other companies buying space on Google websites to advertise their products. To me, that would add up pretty quickly considering how big Google is. The best place on the internet to advertise anything would be Google since it’s used the most out of any other website (or so it seems). According to mydigmedia.com Google owns TONS of things. Way more than I expected. This includes things I’ve never heard of. Postini, Feedbumer, Adscape, YouTube, Orion, Picassa, Pyra Labs, ZipDash, Android, and many more. Those include photo sharing sites, blogger sites, video sharing, and other ways to share media. Holy crap. Google is Aptocratic because it hires the best of the best of the best. Nothing relies on social status, gender, or ethnicity anymore. It is now only based on aptitude and answers to standardized tests. The Google world is held up to such standards that would only get it to the place it is now, or better. Google will never die, it shall only stay as it is, or get stronger and take over the world.
Surprisingly, Yahoo is still trekking along. Why? I don’t know. I think Google should just buy it out and become the biggest thing since sliced bread. Apparently Yahoo is coming out with newer, faster, better things. Applications that will run faster, a better Yahoo mail experience, new search experiences, yadda yadda yadda. I don’t believe it. In my personal experience, Yahoo has proven disappointing. I hope that it’s telling the truth, otherwise Google IS going to dominate completely. The one thing I think is going to sell the Yahoo “cool” factor is the app for iPad tablets it’s coming out with. Though even if it ads to the functions of Yahoo, it’s only available to iPad buyers which hasn’t prospered enough to become a huge way to reach consumers. In my opinion, Yahoo is just there sometimes. When we see it on something we’re looking at, we don’t really pay attention, and sometimes we don’t even realize it’s there. I hope Yahoo is good with subliminal messages because right now, they’re not doing a great job of selling the stuff we KNOW is theirs. Yahoo better step up its game because Google is stomping on its face.
Google - Jessica
I am not quite as invested in the Google “mania” as Dan is, but I do rely on Google quite a bit. It is the main search engine that I use for anything, from websites, to images, to translating a foreign language, to email, and very soon I will be using Google.dox for a class. I like it because it’s simple and gives me what I want. I don’t think I will ever become so invested in the company that a reflection of me is actually all in Google. I probably already have too much information out there on the web through different accounts and sign ups that ask for personal information. I think it’s a dangerous place to be when all of my privacy and information is in one place that is possible taking over the internet world.
I like that Google is very simple. It doesn’t have a lot of the advertising on its pages and when it does they are not dominating over the information I am trying to retrieve. They advertise themselves in attractive ways that aren’t too needy or pushy; they simply advertise what they’ve got. Google owns a lot out in the technology world. As the article stated before, Google just bought Youtube, one of the most popular websites today. The company is getting bigger by its aptocracy people who are using their knowledge in unique ways to really better a product. For example the mathematical equation so that the most precise link shows up to what the consumer wants. It is that it’s changing along with the world as well as changing the world by these people. I feel that Google is for the most part actually listening to what consumers want and using their company for that reason. That is how it’s getting bigger, they are listening to their consumers, changing it for their wants, and in return people will continue to use it. Both parties are getting high rewards in this production.
Yahoo is trying to catch up with Google, but I don’t know if they’ll ever get there. They sound as if their goal is to keep people tied in through Hollywood gossip. They want to be as accessible as Google is now on the different hand held devices. I think one big thing that contributes to Yahoo’s losing popularity is now that they are trying to catch up, nothing is as exciting and something that consumers must have now. Consumers will want newer, better, and faster apps, not ones that we can already get through Google.
AOrtman Google
The search engine that is when Google entered my life I even have Google set up as my home page. I use it all the time even when it comes to looking up stupid stuff that I don’t really care about, it’s just good to know.
Google’s advertising strategies are very simple it is targeted through their clients and their first experience with Google. That first experience is what keeps the people coming back for more.
Google is now bigger than ever it now owns 81 companies and it is even hard to keep up with all their purchases. One of their recent purchases was on September 13, 2010 Quiksee a video hosting service from Israel, but their latest purchase from America was on August 30, 2010 from Angstro a social networking site. Google is turning into a Global empire and they are going to keep getting bigger as they start purchasing more from different countries. Their Aptocratic is amazing they are always testing new things to become the ultimate successors.
Well, where did Yahoo go? I think they all just gave up with competing with Google. What I really believe went wrong with their company is the way they advertised to the people. Every time you would get on Yahoo you would run into so many pop-ups and people just got sick of their interruptions. I also believe if they don’t start fighting back they are not going to have a chance to get back on top.
Google’s advertising strategies are very simple it is targeted through their clients and their first experience with Google. That first experience is what keeps the people coming back for more.
Google is now bigger than ever it now owns 81 companies and it is even hard to keep up with all their purchases. One of their recent purchases was on September 13, 2010 Quiksee a video hosting service from Israel, but their latest purchase from America was on August 30, 2010 from Angstro a social networking site. Google is turning into a Global empire and they are going to keep getting bigger as they start purchasing more from different countries. Their Aptocratic is amazing they are always testing new things to become the ultimate successors.
Well, where did Yahoo go? I think they all just gave up with competing with Google. What I really believe went wrong with their company is the way they advertised to the people. Every time you would get on Yahoo you would run into so many pop-ups and people just got sick of their interruptions. I also believe if they don’t start fighting back they are not going to have a chance to get back on top.
Google- Caitlin
1. I have to say that I am a lot like Dan Firger. Absolutely every time I sign onto a computer I utilize Google and its many features. I use Google search for web, images, videos, you name it. I also use Google for my Gmail account and Google Groups for a number of my classes. I have Google as my home page and even use Google Scholar for many of my projects. I even use Google Earth when I am bored and want to creep around. Every time I want to know something right away, I just “Google it”. I see that some people said they use Google calendar, but I haven’t gotten into that yet considering I use my planner and calendar in my phone to keep track of what I have going on. It is kind of scary to think that so much of my day involves and thrives around Google. I have to admit that I am dependant on it.
2. According to the Google Advertising Programs, Google allows buyers to select “Adwords” to their sites so that more people will stumble upon it. Google wants this because then every time someone stumbles upon your website and clicks on it, you have to pay. You honestly have to pay, every time someone clicks on your website when using a Google Advertising Program. According to mydigmedia.com Google owns 39 different aspects, including YouTube, Deja.com, Android software, and the list goes on. This company will just grow and grow because it will keep buying more and more. Google is able to make so much money by users just surfing around on the web and paying for websites. Many website owners need to rely on Google to get recognition at all and since Google is becoming more and more powerful, more and more people need to rely on them for online survival. Google is Aptocratic in the sense that it is so powerful and has so much money that it, in part, helps to run America. It is able to spend the money to be the front runner and it is able to provide for so many.
3. Honestly I have never been an avid user of Yahoo! and never will be. I don’t even see their “Yahhhhooooooo” commercials on TV any more and it’s kind of sad. The literally could not keep up with the completion that Google has brought to the table. Google seems so much more technologically advanced and has more to offer the youth and business groups in today’s society. I know there are some who still use Yahoo!, but it is nothing compared to the numbers I see and hear about in Google.
2. According to the Google Advertising Programs, Google allows buyers to select “Adwords” to their sites so that more people will stumble upon it. Google wants this because then every time someone stumbles upon your website and clicks on it, you have to pay. You honestly have to pay, every time someone clicks on your website when using a Google Advertising Program. According to mydigmedia.com Google owns 39 different aspects, including YouTube, Deja.com, Android software, and the list goes on. This company will just grow and grow because it will keep buying more and more. Google is able to make so much money by users just surfing around on the web and paying for websites. Many website owners need to rely on Google to get recognition at all and since Google is becoming more and more powerful, more and more people need to rely on them for online survival. Google is Aptocratic in the sense that it is so powerful and has so much money that it, in part, helps to run America. It is able to spend the money to be the front runner and it is able to provide for so many.
3. Honestly I have never been an avid user of Yahoo! and never will be. I don’t even see their “Yahhhhooooooo” commercials on TV any more and it’s kind of sad. The literally could not keep up with the completion that Google has brought to the table. Google seems so much more technologically advanced and has more to offer the youth and business groups in today’s society. I know there are some who still use Yahoo!, but it is nothing compared to the numbers I see and hear about in Google.
GOOGLE-Derik
I am like Dan Firger in the fact that I use Google, but my life doesn't revolve around it. Using items like Google calendar seem a little far fetched for me, isn't that the reason schools have free planners? Nobody has a life that is so exotic with ten different things going on all the time-if you can't remember what you have to do each day it's time to slow things down and narrow your focus. Google is helpful, but literally is everywhere. At the rate they are expanding one day they will know my thoughts before I do. I never realized how powerful Google was until Daniel Tosh did a joke involving Google and from that time they've become even bigger.
I don't know much about Google's advertising except the fact it obviously works. In the article it states their advertising is 99% of their revenue and they are worth $160 billion so yikes. Overall they've been successful with every market they've jumped into. Not only are they involved with e-mail, social networking, and obviously searches, but they've maneuvered their way into our phones. Where will the madness end? If it gets any bigger it will knock yahoo out of any contention and all other similar networks. Google is aptocratic in the way they present all their material because they've managed to spend the money finding the best and brightest resources while providing the best service while maintaining classy and fully functional.
I wish I knew what happened to yahoo. I still use the site more than google, but it never seems to change visually. I remember every special occasion Google has a little image above the search engine just highlighting the event. Something simple like that is all that needs to be done, I think Yahoo needs to clean house and get some new people with fresh ideas in their advertising agency. When reading about all the work and math put behind Google it's no wonder they have a say in everything. I wasn't aware until yesterday when the Google and You Tube ads were connected during a mash up that Google actually owned You Tube. It's hard to imagine how much more is out there still to be obtained.
I don't know much about Google's advertising except the fact it obviously works. In the article it states their advertising is 99% of their revenue and they are worth $160 billion so yikes. Overall they've been successful with every market they've jumped into. Not only are they involved with e-mail, social networking, and obviously searches, but they've maneuvered their way into our phones. Where will the madness end? If it gets any bigger it will knock yahoo out of any contention and all other similar networks. Google is aptocratic in the way they present all their material because they've managed to spend the money finding the best and brightest resources while providing the best service while maintaining classy and fully functional.
I wish I knew what happened to yahoo. I still use the site more than google, but it never seems to change visually. I remember every special occasion Google has a little image above the search engine just highlighting the event. Something simple like that is all that needs to be done, I think Yahoo needs to clean house and get some new people with fresh ideas in their advertising agency. When reading about all the work and math put behind Google it's no wonder they have a say in everything. I wasn't aware until yesterday when the Google and You Tube ads were connected during a mash up that Google actually owned You Tube. It's hard to imagine how much more is out there still to be obtained.
Google - Kate
1. Google is my life. I am annoyed beyond belief when I am on a computer and Google is not set as the go-to search engine. I use Google calendar, search engine, Google Earth, YouTube - you name it, I probably have a brand loyalty to Google. I think part of it is my personality. I did my undergrad at Wartburg because I never wanted to be a number; I wanted people to know me and have a personal atmosphere. Maybe that says something about my dedication and loyalty to Google. I appreciate the fact that everything is user-friendly, convenient, helpful, and free. My mom wanted a new email address, and I wouldn't make her one unless she agreed to switch to Gmail instead of Hotmail. Google has made me a walking advertisement for them, but that's okay as long as they continue to make my life simpler.
2. According to Wikipedia, Google earns 99% of their revenue through advertising. This is huge. One problem with this is that they haven't been able to combat "click fraud," which is described as either a human or a program clicking on the advertising without actually being interested in it. Still, they're obviously doing something right due to their success. Google is really an innovative company. They are aptocratic in the fact that they recognize talent and potential and snatch it up to make it part of their family, putting that talent under their wing. Just two examples of companies they bought and took over are (as they are now named) Google Earth and Google Voice.
This aptocracy discussion reminded me of a conversation I had with a friend who is currently in dental school and doing exceptionally well. He was remarking about a conversation he had with his sister. He said that she was complaining about her career in social work and how little money she made. He told her to get off her butt and go back to dental school if she wanted to have money - he nonchalantly told me that she is just lazy, and anyone who is poor is just lazy. Oh, I was steaming out of my ears. Not everyone in the world can be a dentist, or a doctor, or a lawyer. It doesn't mean that those individuals aren't smart and don't have exceptional talents of their own, but he didn't recognize the fact that individuals are unique and have their own perspectives and gifts. For being so smart, he's pretty dense. I'm not sure that he's Google material.
I wanted to share something with you from my website's dashboard. With my photography website that I get through VistaPrint, it breaks down for me where all of my traffic comes from - in other words, how people found my website. I add a lot of pictures on Facebook with the link to my website posted as the caption on the Facebook. That's my advertising. Truthfully, that strategy hasn't gotten me a lot of my business. It's free advertising. The 2nd place referral site is Google - go figure. Google is ahead by a LOT compared to all other search engines.
3. This is what I have to say about Yahoo!: They just haven't been able to keep up. Google is young and hip and cool. My 39 year old sister and her 49 year old husband use Yahoo for everything. They use it because they're afraid of change and neither of them even know how to attach a file to an email. That's the image that comes to mind for me when someone wants to talk about Google v. Yahoo.
2. According to Wikipedia, Google earns 99% of their revenue through advertising. This is huge. One problem with this is that they haven't been able to combat "click fraud," which is described as either a human or a program clicking on the advertising without actually being interested in it. Still, they're obviously doing something right due to their success. Google is really an innovative company. They are aptocratic in the fact that they recognize talent and potential and snatch it up to make it part of their family, putting that talent under their wing. Just two examples of companies they bought and took over are (as they are now named) Google Earth and Google Voice.
This aptocracy discussion reminded me of a conversation I had with a friend who is currently in dental school and doing exceptionally well. He was remarking about a conversation he had with his sister. He said that she was complaining about her career in social work and how little money she made. He told her to get off her butt and go back to dental school if she wanted to have money - he nonchalantly told me that she is just lazy, and anyone who is poor is just lazy. Oh, I was steaming out of my ears. Not everyone in the world can be a dentist, or a doctor, or a lawyer. It doesn't mean that those individuals aren't smart and don't have exceptional talents of their own, but he didn't recognize the fact that individuals are unique and have their own perspectives and gifts. For being so smart, he's pretty dense. I'm not sure that he's Google material.
I wanted to share something with you from my website's dashboard. With my photography website that I get through VistaPrint, it breaks down for me where all of my traffic comes from - in other words, how people found my website. I add a lot of pictures on Facebook with the link to my website posted as the caption on the Facebook. That's my advertising. Truthfully, that strategy hasn't gotten me a lot of my business. It's free advertising. The 2nd place referral site is Google - go figure. Google is ahead by a LOT compared to all other search engines.
3. This is what I have to say about Yahoo!: They just haven't been able to keep up. Google is young and hip and cool. My 39 year old sister and her 49 year old husband use Yahoo for everything. They use it because they're afraid of change and neither of them even know how to attach a file to an email. That's the image that comes to mind for me when someone wants to talk about Google v. Yahoo.
Google - Erin
1. I am very similar to Dan Firger. I use so many Google applications on a day-to-day basis that it’s kind of scary. Sometimes I hate to think how electronically reliable I am. I use Google for a home page, a search engine, Google Scholar for research, Google Sites for a class portfolio, Google Groups for a class discussion board, etc. One thing that I have not tinkered with very much that I think would be pretty useful for me is the Google calendar. Since I use the website so much anyway, I may as well plan my days there, too!
Mashup - Erin
Here is my mashup: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rebH8NRuEA8
For my mashup I used clips from MTV’s Jersey Shore and an STD PSA from 1944. I chose this idea for my mashup because I think this show is a prime example of how American media is becoming more tolerant of sexuality, not necessarily in a good way. The show’s popularity is an obvious indication that the public condones this kind of behavior and practically glorifies it. That being said, I thought I would create a mashup that shows a different, but funny side to this increasing promiscuity. By incorporating the STD clips, I think I got my point across that, while all the sexual escapades may make for some good TV, they may also have their “behind-the-scenes” consequences.
I liked Megan’s mashup about body image. Young children, and girls in particular, are already growing up too fast by being exposed to the media’s expectations about what is considered beautiful. By having their parents (or other influences) dress them up and make them over in these ways, they are only going to feel increasing pressure to look that way all the time. They need to be taught that it’s okay to be exactly how they are and still be beautiful.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Google - Heather
I’d like to think I’m not as google-dependant as Dan Firger, but I feel like the primary reason is because I don’t have internet access on my phone. I use Google to run my life; making daily/weekly/monthly to-do lists, using Google docs, maps, blogger and of course having all of my e-mails routed directly to g-mail from other e-mail accounts (because really, why would I check two or three?). Not to mention the obvious use of Google search.Wow, I didn’t realize how often I use Google…
Previously, I knew about Googles “pay per click” advertising, but that was about all I knew. I went here (http://www.vertygoteam.com/google_marketing_strategy.php) to find more information on Google’s business plan (of course I found the site using their search engine.). Currently I’m aware of Google owning YouTube and Picasa. Here’s a fun video that is slightly ridiculous, but entertaining and I found even has some true information!
As Siva Vaidhyanathan states, Google is aptocratic in nature because it is run by people who were hired based on their completion of quantifiable, standardized exams. Naturally, since those hired excel in these areas it is what they know and like; so then the search engine is run in such a way as to elicit “fairness” by rewarding websites who play by their rules, and punishing those who don’t.
Previously, I knew about Googles “pay per click” advertising, but that was about all I knew. I went here (http://www.vertygoteam.com/google_marketing_strategy.php) to find more information on Google’s business plan (of course I found the site using their search engine.). Currently I’m aware of Google owning YouTube and Picasa. Here’s a fun video that is slightly ridiculous, but entertaining and I found even has some true information!
As Siva Vaidhyanathan states, Google is aptocratic in nature because it is run by people who were hired based on their completion of quantifiable, standardized exams. Naturally, since those hired excel in these areas it is what they know and like; so then the search engine is run in such a way as to elicit “fairness” by rewarding websites who play by their rules, and punishing those who don’t.
Google- Kacie
Google is not as essential in my life as it seems to be for Firger. I use Google as my first choice for a search engine. I recently have utilized it for GoogleDocs and GoogleScholar for academic purposes. I now have a gmail account set up as a result of this course. At this point, I don’t use this address as much because of my UNI e-mail. I may use this more after I graduate, but the use of the other tools may decrease at this point as well.
I have not really thought about Google’s advertising strategy or what they own. In my world, they seem pretty distant yet available. Very rarely do I watch television so I haven’t seen any commercials if they even have any. I guess I don’t really know what they own either. After a very small amount of searching (on Google), I found a website that lists what Google owns. This can be found at http://searchwarp.com/swa300671.htm. I know very few of these sites other than YouTube. Google is “aptocratic” because of its ability to find sources for the answers to our questions. Based on our keywords, Google supplies different sites. For the most part, these sites are ranked from “best fit” to “worst fit”. This technology can only be produced by those people who are able to encode this into the programming system.
I think Yahoo! is still pretty common for a lot of people. I think this is mostly for people who began with Yahoo! and don’t have to switch their provider every time something new and shiny comes out. I had/have Yahoo! accounts since grade school. I don’t really care to switch to the new thing if what I currently have works fine for me.
I have not really thought about Google’s advertising strategy or what they own. In my world, they seem pretty distant yet available. Very rarely do I watch television so I haven’t seen any commercials if they even have any. I guess I don’t really know what they own either. After a very small amount of searching (on Google), I found a website that lists what Google owns. This can be found at http://searchwarp.com/swa300671.htm. I know very few of these sites other than YouTube. Google is “aptocratic” because of its ability to find sources for the answers to our questions. Based on our keywords, Google supplies different sites. For the most part, these sites are ranked from “best fit” to “worst fit”. This technology can only be produced by those people who are able to encode this into the programming system.
I think Yahoo! is still pretty common for a lot of people. I think this is mostly for people who began with Yahoo! and don’t have to switch their provider every time something new and shiny comes out. I had/have Yahoo! accounts since grade school. I don’t really care to switch to the new thing if what I currently have works fine for me.
Mashup
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eofzQmAu3rs
The purpose of my mashup is regarding violence against women. I defend my mashup by what it is explaining to the world how violence towards women is unacceptable. It depends on how you look at it, to myself I find it more empowering, but to others it might not mean a thing.
The purpose of my mashup is regarding violence against women. I defend my mashup by what it is explaining to the world how violence towards women is unacceptable. It depends on how you look at it, to myself I find it more empowering, but to others it might not mean a thing.
Reid on Google's World Domination
1. How are you like Dan Firger (even remotely)?
I let google in on a significant portion of my life. I have several gmail accounts, I make use of google docs for both class assignments as well as projects with my friends. I even use google calender to sort out long range planning (I often forget to check it, but it still has all of my classes and major trips on it). Gchat, and Google Wave are part of my media sharing experience, even blogger is synced up so that once I sign into gmail I don't have to sign in here. Google knows more about my daily schedule, contact with friends, and projects than even my roommates do most of the time.
2. What do you know about Google's advertising strategies? What does Google own; how is the company going to get bigger, and HOW is Google "Aptocratic" ?
Advertising strategies, I know that they have text recognition software that scans every email and search option I use, then puts up what are considered 'related' ads on the side of the page. The only reason this doesn't bug most folks is that google has mastered the art of the subtle ad. They are just simple plain text, no flashers, no animations, just there. And while one for one you might get paid more for a colored pop up than a black and white text box, in the quantities that google uses they more than make up the difference.
As far as what they own, I'm really not sure. I know they own youtube, and have been struggling for years to make it profitable, see the recent appearance of targeted adds and on-video pop ups that even showed up on some of the class mash ups. Past that I don't know of any companies aside from those under the actual Google label they own.
3. Yahoo! used to be one of Google's BIGGEST competitors...what happened to Yahoo!??
Yahoo committed the biggest sin any tech company can. They stagnated. Back in the early and even mid 2000's Yahoo was the internet Giant. They had all the search tech, social media, even catchy TV commercials. They were also rated as one of the best companies to work at. But then they got complacent at the top. They dropped more money into advertising than research, and Google snuck up and stole the crown.
I let google in on a significant portion of my life. I have several gmail accounts, I make use of google docs for both class assignments as well as projects with my friends. I even use google calender to sort out long range planning (I often forget to check it, but it still has all of my classes and major trips on it). Gchat, and Google Wave are part of my media sharing experience, even blogger is synced up so that once I sign into gmail I don't have to sign in here. Google knows more about my daily schedule, contact with friends, and projects than even my roommates do most of the time.
2. What do you know about Google's advertising strategies? What does Google own; how is the company going to get bigger, and HOW is Google "Aptocratic" ?
Advertising strategies, I know that they have text recognition software that scans every email and search option I use, then puts up what are considered 'related' ads on the side of the page. The only reason this doesn't bug most folks is that google has mastered the art of the subtle ad. They are just simple plain text, no flashers, no animations, just there. And while one for one you might get paid more for a colored pop up than a black and white text box, in the quantities that google uses they more than make up the difference.
As far as what they own, I'm really not sure. I know they own youtube, and have been struggling for years to make it profitable, see the recent appearance of targeted adds and on-video pop ups that even showed up on some of the class mash ups. Past that I don't know of any companies aside from those under the actual Google label they own.
3. Yahoo! used to be one of Google's BIGGEST competitors...what happened to Yahoo!??
Yahoo committed the biggest sin any tech company can. They stagnated. Back in the early and even mid 2000's Yahoo was the internet Giant. They had all the search tech, social media, even catchy TV commercials. They were also rated as one of the best companies to work at. But then they got complacent at the top. They dropped more money into advertising than research, and Google snuck up and stole the crown.
Sydney's Mashup
I used the song "A Good Man" by Emmerson Drive, and I put it along to pictures and some video clips of rich, famous, notorious NOT good guys. I mean these guys all have their qualities, but they are also well known for the cheating they did in their marriages.
I justify my video as fair use because the song is clearly meaning the opposite of the pictures and clips I put along with it, and I am transforming it to mean something completely opposite as Emmerson Drive was trying to, so it is my own creation.
I really liked Keisha's Jersey Shore mashup, like I commented on hers. I also like the Will Ferrell/ Condaleeza Rice one, but I'm not sure I get it as a mashup. To me it looks like its the same song that goes with it already? But I could be wrong! Also, the "Low" video was cool too, I think it meshed together really well. OH and the Dove commercial one was one of my favorites! :)
here is my video! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUT5zl6549s
I justify my video as fair use because the song is clearly meaning the opposite of the pictures and clips I put along with it, and I am transforming it to mean something completely opposite as Emmerson Drive was trying to, so it is my own creation.
I really liked Keisha's Jersey Shore mashup, like I commented on hers. I also like the Will Ferrell/ Condaleeza Rice one, but I'm not sure I get it as a mashup. To me it looks like its the same song that goes with it already? But I could be wrong! Also, the "Low" video was cool too, I think it meshed together really well. OH and the Dove commercial one was one of my favorites! :)
here is my video! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUT5zl6549s
Monday, September 20, 2010
Mashup - Ryan B
I made this video to make the point that I believe we do over-medicate our children. I actually had a difficult time coming up with any idea that I wanted to make a point about. For some reason the "David after Dentist" video that I first saw on the popular Comedy Central show Tosh.O, kept sticking in my head. I know the point of the mashup assignment was to make a point but I had a difficult time doing that in a serious way. I thought this video would invoke both a little laughter and a little thought to the point that maybe we are over-medicating our nation’s children.
I justify my mashup because both videos were altered enough and used in a way to create a completely different video with a completely different meaning. The clips from the news broadcast…which is pubic material anyway, were cut with the "David after Dentist" video to put a comedic twist on the broadcast. The dentist video was just a father filming his son after getting knocked out at the dentist. He wasn’t being over-medicated in regards to anti-depressants and anti-psychotics, but his reactions to the drug mixed with the news story brought an entirely new take on the video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOb8Qs4CCEo
I justify my mashup because both videos were altered enough and used in a way to create a completely different video with a completely different meaning. The clips from the news broadcast…which is pubic material anyway, were cut with the "David after Dentist" video to put a comedic twist on the broadcast. The dentist video was just a father filming his son after getting knocked out at the dentist. He wasn’t being over-medicated in regards to anti-depressants and anti-psychotics, but his reactions to the drug mixed with the news story brought an entirely new take on the video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOb8Qs4CCEo
German Mash-Up
For my mash up assignment, I chose to make a study of one of the most bizzarely complex societies on Earth. The German culture. Many people know that the typical German at a normal state seems infuriated in comparison to the rest of the world. However, there are three things that make Germans happy. They go in levels, the most basic being rap music. The next level of happiness many Germans attain is that of Beer. The Oktoberfest in Munich is a HUGE festival and most Germans love this festival. Finally, Germans are made happy by what they may be best known for. Excellently engineered automobiles. For this project I found videos of "Angry German Kid Rapping" followed by a video of the Munich Oktoberfest which were demonstrative of German happiness. Finally, I used a video of a vintage BMW advertisement that has a soft, nearly "Mad Men" quality to it. The intensity of these three videos decreases as the German happiness level rises, demonstrating how the scale indeed works.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwiGH1nPanw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-nuh3FUAGU
I have never done anything editing wise so the purpose of this mashup was just to have fun in doing this so I choose my favorite band and picked some of there best videos and mashed it up with some other random music. I am definately making this video useful for people to watch just to hear some of the best work this band has done. I dont feel like I am totally transforming the content in a completley different way just want people to understand about the great music this band has created while mashing it with some different music. I do not think my video could hold up in court because I am using video from so many different videos, i would get into big trouble. I really enjoy Kieshas project, it is very unique how she used Jersey shore, and talked about world peace in it as well it is very good. I would not change anything about it. I really enjoy Megans video, it makes a strong point about plastic surgery and how women are so uptight about there appearance. I would maybe show some more celebrities and how they have changed to make an even stronger statement but this is really good!
Britt's Mash Up 2010
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5sv3h0AXEM
Honestly, what inspired me to create this sort of a mash up video was seeing how the children (yes, children) danced when I volunteered in the Dominican Republic. The little girls and boys were very much dancing like the girls in the Ludacris video, when in reality, they shouldn't. But, that's just my perspective coming from a very different culture. The "Limbo Rock" song is a very popular American song that encourages children to "get low". I felt Ludacris's "Get Low" music video and "Limbo Rock" were in perfect contrast with one another in order for me to get my point across.
I justify my Mash Up video in regards to Fair use in that I'm not utilizing these videos as they were meant to be utilized. Yes, I am indeed using these videos to make my own creation, but the context is completely different and my video is used for educational purposes, nothing more.
I thought Keisha's video was very well done. It was definitely a Mash Up video in that she was contrasted war and peace. I love the voice in the beginning because it really catches my attention about what the video will be about. I really enjoyed Jessica's as well. Although, I did feel, at times, that there wasn't much "mashing up" going on between the content in the video. So, that could maybe be something to enhance next time. I absolutely LOVED Megan W's video. I thought it had the perfect image for her idea and the background vocals were perfectly contrasted! Great job!
I think that as long as someone has a DIFFERENT point or perspective to be made on a particular video, than it could be held up in court for Fair Use.
Honestly, what inspired me to create this sort of a mash up video was seeing how the children (yes, children) danced when I volunteered in the Dominican Republic. The little girls and boys were very much dancing like the girls in the Ludacris video, when in reality, they shouldn't. But, that's just my perspective coming from a very different culture. The "Limbo Rock" song is a very popular American song that encourages children to "get low". I felt Ludacris's "Get Low" music video and "Limbo Rock" were in perfect contrast with one another in order for me to get my point across.
I justify my Mash Up video in regards to Fair use in that I'm not utilizing these videos as they were meant to be utilized. Yes, I am indeed using these videos to make my own creation, but the context is completely different and my video is used for educational purposes, nothing more.
I thought Keisha's video was very well done. It was definitely a Mash Up video in that she was contrasted war and peace. I love the voice in the beginning because it really catches my attention about what the video will be about. I really enjoyed Jessica's as well. Although, I did feel, at times, that there wasn't much "mashing up" going on between the content in the video. So, that could maybe be something to enhance next time. I absolutely LOVED Megan W's video. I thought it had the perfect image for her idea and the background vocals were perfectly contrasted! Great job!
I think that as long as someone has a DIFFERENT point or perspective to be made on a particular video, than it could be held up in court for Fair Use.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)